This workshop hosted by Newcastle University’s International Centre for Cultural & Heritage Studies focused on publishing and peer-reviewing for early career researchers. I presented on publishing strategies – how you can make best use of your time to get the most out of your research in the hectic post-PhD years. My slides from the event are here and below are my notes from the session.

“From publish or perish, to publish and thrive”: developing a publication strategy as an ECR

This talk aims to you thinking about how you create a publishing strategy in the later and post-PhD stages in order to make the most of your time, get the best out of your publications, and make yourself employable as you do so.

“Publish or perish” is an oft-cited phrase in academia; you need to publish to get ahead. But there’s a sense of negativity implicit in this phrase, and talk of publishing often…

Good news is that most people work and plan according to their desires, capacities and passions rather than strategic thinking. It’s hard to imagine how academia woul be if this was how most people think: for sure it’d be a less free, more cynical place than it is. No thanks, I prefer risking my precarious carrier than giving up my passion

Well I’ve always been very clear on this site that all advice is offered/linked with the proviso that it is not for everyone. If you’re happy with what you’re doing, that’s fine. But many people will, I think, find a post like this very helpful. I’d also dispute the idea that there is an either/or choice between being strategic and following your interests. It’s entirely possible to do both – indeed a bit of strategic thinking can really help with being able to follow your passions. In part advice like this is intended to help people navigate through the pressures of academic work in a way that is more personally sustainable and fulfilling.

Thanks for the reply. I follow yur blog also for much useful advice you write and share. I think, though, that this particular post is example of a way to think academia where strategy has become all the game is about. I agree there is no simple dichotomy; but beyond helping individuals improve their own paths, I think we have the responsibility to think collectively what academia is – e.g., we should boycott exercises such as the REF, which are buolt on odeas detrimental to academia as a collective emdeavout

The REF has some distorting effects on careers certainly, but individuals are hardly able to boycott it. It would need much better support from the union and institutional pressure. Given that it is a constraint in the existing system, especially for new entrants to the profession, having guidance about how it works and how to work within it seems to me to be invaluable.

Sure, “resistance” to “evaluation” must be collective. In Italy, during the last round of VQR (which is waaaaay worst than REF) somehing like 6/8% of researchers organised to not submit, forcing universities to submit against their will and ultimately the evauation agency to admit the evaluation was flawed. Eventually, not much changed, but that case shows there’s room to radical action